Locals should have the final say, not the Feds.nine think the Moan area does a great job of sharing the land. Except for the National Parks.

Um Sorry but..Most of the land in the Moab area is BLM = FEDERAL. The difference is that BLM has had a policy in the past of of "it's all open to use." However, believe it or not, BLM policy has been changing in the last decade. Lots of the open camping/recreational use is being limited. You can't just camp anywhere in the Moab area anymore. You can't just ride anywhere anymore. Much is driven by wildlife such as Bighorn Sheep. Some is driven by high impact usage.

But the sharing is not necessarily determined by the locals. The locals can express their views since this drives their economy but in the end the Govt gets to dictate the rules.

4x4s are allowed in Canyonlands National Park on some trails, so it's not like they will be banned if the area around Canyonlands N.P. is designated as a national monument. I guess the Jeepers are worried that some of the trails will be shut down because of environmental concerns. Jeeps are fun, but the desert ecosystem is more important than 4-wheeling.

Just because it is a non issue for mountain bikers at the moment does not mean that it won't be in the future. I believe that excluding one group just makes it easier to exclude another in the future. Divide and conquer.

Or there are some of us that own a Jeep, mountain bike, and backpack. Taking land away is no good.

On the other hand it looks like they are trying to save it from drillers and gas companies. The offroad and mountain biking industry bring so much money to Utah that it will be unfortunate if they ever severely limit usage. That and it's also the best 4-wheeling in the US.

I am sorry to join in on what surely will be quite a mess soon this but when people start ranting on about "land grabs" of places that they didn't even know existed (And I quote, "Edit: I just realized that this is Moab that they're talking about!") I get irked.

Here's the deal in a nutshell,

Utah right now is steeped in a lot of fighting over state and federal land and natural resource extraction. It's been going on for decades but has gotten more attention recently.
The state legislature has been in a hubbub and decided to vote for a meaningless non-binding resolution demanding the federal government to give all the public lands over to the state so that they could essentially hand it over to private resource extraction interests without federal regulation.

(Obviously this is not ever going to actually happen- this is akin to a temper tantrum out of a two year old for a cookie, but with a far less chance of success).

What this did do is show saber rattling against the outdoor community which is a major part of Utah and it's economy. This is why you know what a "Moab" is and why so many companies you have heard of that are on that open letter have addresses in Utah.
People visit and live and own businesses in Utah because of the 4-wheeling, biking, rafting, skiing, climbing, etc. and all these things rely on federal protection to remain what we want it to be. And yes this includes ATVs and 4x4s.

This letter was to make a statement to not only the federal government but to people like you who like to visit places like Moab that not all of Utah stands by the nuts in our state legislature and that we still want outdoor recreation protected.

So go back to your 4x4 forum and remind them about other national monuments that have been protected for them such as the Grand Staircase, the entire Great Western Trial, and Hovenweep.

What National Monument designation does is restrict and put under more public scrutiny and just makes it less of a free for all and protects citizens' rights to enjoy it without getting mashed to bits for resource extraction and the like.

Everyone who thought that this isn't an issue for mountain bikers or that no mountain bike companies were on that list, do yourself a favor and google "Quality Bicycle Products" which is a Utah based company that's on the list.

(1) None of the established biking areas immediately around Moab are threatened by this designation, per my perusal of the map. I would peg the big losers as the moto-ers.

(2) I don't support the designation, only because I feel it drives old and hackneyed wedges between user groups. That's like 1990s Moab: the jeepers vs. the bikers vs. the hikers vs the ????? in some zero sum game. The Moab of the last 5 years is a testament to the opposite of this: multiple use, managed well (I dare say, though few agree) by a chronically underfunded and under appreciated agency (BLM).

(3) One fallacy runs rampant. Each user group thinks they uniquely drive Moab's economic engine. Truth is, you could take any of the individual groups away (even some of the biggies, like jeepers or bikers), and Moab would hurt, but it would go on. No one user group holds so much sway over the Moab economy so as to throw their perceived weight around so divisively What makes Moab work more than anything (IMHO) is the diversity of use.

(4) As a tax paying citizen of Grand County (and Moab City), my opinion on how to handle nearby federal land should matter exactly as much as that of any other citizen in the US, (even some dude in Jersey who doesn't know what Canyonlands is). As lidaman emphasized, it's FEDERAL land, and certainly no more my land than any other American's land.

Read the list of supporters of the letter. There's no MTB companies on it.

There are several local MTB guide companies who've signed it....

Also, this could backfire on MTB-ing depending on how the decision makers clasify a bicycle. It's a touchy subject -- on one hand bicycles are classified as vehicles (see your state's driving handbook) and on the other, we don't want to be so MTB access can be had. Watch your local Sierra Club emails, they LOVE to call a bicycle a vehicle and let's face it, they have more political clout than IMBA. WE can change that, however.

Everyone who thought that this isn't an issue for mountain bikers or that no mountain bike companies were on that list, do yourself a favor and google "Quality Bicycle Products" which is a Utah based company that's on the list.

Read the list of supporters of the letter. There's no MTB companies on it. Once the enviro-nazis get on a roll, who do you think will be next?

Point is that there is already a stringent management plan in place and there's no reason for a decree to change it. That decree would be a precedent.

If you think your MTB access is safe, go read some of the wackiness on the PCT-L. People think that you are a menace to society, bro.

There aren't any MTB manufacturers on the list, but there are many MTB companies on the list. Companies that sell MTBs, fix MTBs, sell parts and/or components and gear and companies who run MTB trips. So yes, there most definitely MTB companies on this list.

Originally Posted by jmmorath

Hi!
A Utahn here!

This would "take land away" how exactly, and from whom...?

I am sorry to join in on what surely will be quite a mess soon this but when people start ranting on about "land grabs" of places that they didn't even know existed (And I quote, "Edit: I just realized that this is Moab that they're talking about!") I get irked.

Really? I think he knew it existed, what it was and where it is. May have even ridden there. What he didn't realize is that the subject area included Moab. That kind of response and presumption lessens your reply.

Originally Posted by jmmorath

The state legislature has been in a hubbub and decided to vote for a meaningless non-binding resolution demanding the federal government to give all the public lands over to the state so that they could essentially hand it over to private resource extraction interests without federal regulation.

(Obviously this is not ever going to actually happen- this is akin to a temper tantrum out of a two year old for a cookie, but with a far less chance of success).

While it's not going to happen, it's not meaningless. In politics actions like this are pretty strong. It's kind of like the US saying they "deplore" the action of another country. It seems meaningless to most of us, but it has meaning. And, should the your elected officials in Salt Lake decide it's worth it, they have means, through the courts and other avenues to attempt to put some teeth into such a resolution. However, like you said, this one seems to be more for show - sending a message.

Originally Posted by jmmorath

This is why you know what a "Moab" is

Again, the condescension doesn't help you.

Originally Posted by jmmorath

What National Monument designation does is restrict and put under more public scrutiny and just makes it less of a free for all and protects citizens' rights to enjoy it without getting mashed to bits for resource extraction and the like.

It also allows managers to disallow certain uses. Look at the Colorado National Monument, for example. No MTB access there. So it most definitely has the ability to restrict uses. Would a Canyonlands National Monument manager kill MTBing? Maybe. OHVing? Maybe. They could. Do they have the ability to license mineral extraction? The Death Valley National Monument has mining rules, so we're back to increased scrutiny, potential restrictions and even potential mineral extraction use.

Originally Posted by J.B. Weld

Nazis were an overwhelming force that tortured and murdered human beings.

Environmentalists are a minority group who champion for clean air, clean water, native plant and animal habitat, and open space.

Name calling in general is pretty low brow, but comparisons like this are uncalled for IMO.

Nazis were also people who thought and acted with the premise of my way is the best, I'll accomplish it any way I can, regardless of who's in the way and didn't really think beyond the end of their noses. Environmentalists aren't like that, but there is a extremist subset within the environmentalist community who do think and act like that. They burn buildings (putting tons of pollutants into the air) to show a building shouldn't be there. They drive large metal spikes into trees to "protect" the tree, potentially murdering human beings in the process. They are some of the most short sighted, arrogant, holier than thou people I've come across, and if you have the audacity to disagree with anything they so fervently hold to be right, then you become the scum of the earth, not worth the CO2 you're polluting the air with every time you exhale. Though the term "enviro-nazi" is overused, it has its place as an accurate description of some of the people "championing" the cause.

On the flip side. Utah is forced to take hazardous waste from other states & countries that it wholeheartedly does not want. The federal government is hypocritical; they want to protect UT lands from oil & gas, but force us to take hazardous waste?

X2. The NPs around here don't even allow my dogs on the trails. I don't visit them. Bad move, and there has to be another way to not allow the lease to gas companies.

National parks and national monuments are not the same thing, and are not managed in the same way. Also not the same as national wilderness area, which a few other comments seem to allude to. All of this seems a little knee-jerk, as a move to declare a NM would be to prevent drilling and other energy development. Seems a little premature to say this would affect recreation to the extent some are assuming. If it moves in that direction, then appropriate discussion is warranted...but the landscape level effects of energy development and its implications in this area might be a better topic.

Nazis were also people who thought and acted with the premise of my way is the best, I'll accomplish it any way I can, regardless of who's in the way and didn't really think beyond the end of their noses. Environmentalists aren't like that, but there is a extremist subset within the environmentalist community who do think and act like that.

Though the term "enviro-nazi" is overused, it has its place as an accurate description of some of the people "championing" the cause.

In response to the first statement, there are extremists in every group- I wonder if you are a bigot in other regards.

To the second I say bull honky. People (like me) are accused of being enviro-nazis because we may place more importance on a river, an animal species, or an eco-system than an individual or corporation's financial well being. So I am a "Nazi" because I believe clean air and water free of pcb's are of more value than cheap energy and plentiful plastic crap.

If it makes you feel better, we (environmentalists) are losing big time to big money so you have little to fear from us greenies, and I still contend that points on all sides would be less diminished by avoiding childish name calling.

Enviros bad for us, bad for USA

Originally Posted by J.B. Weld

Environmentalists are a minority group who champion for clean air, clean water, native plant and animal habitat, and open space.

This statement is not true.

The environmentalists are a (wealthy) special interest group that wants to keep almost everyone out of public land. And they want to destroy the United States by crippling energy production, manufacturing, etc.